A crow is defined as a black colored bird. Suppose someone discovers a white crow. Can the white bird be called a crow?
You cannot call the white bird a crow because crows are defined as being black.
Modern lexicographers have defined perpetual motion as something that is impossible. If someone were to re-discover Bessler's wheel then can it be called perpetual motion?
If the definition of perpetual motion is something that is impossible then Bessler's wheel cannot be labeled as perpetual motion because lexicographers have defined perpetual motion as something that is impossible.
This is an absurd situation. The lexicographers and academicians have committed a grievous error. They have taken it upon themselves to change the traditional meaning of perpetual motion to suit their own beliefs and to then force those beliefs upon all who read their dictionary definitions.
Of course the situation cannot be corrected until the principle of perpetual motion is rediscovered so that the lexicographers and academicians are proven wrong when they define perpetual motion as something impossible.
I didn't think they would actually try to spell it out as impossible. Is there a perpetual motion of the third kind???
Jim W.
World English Dictionary
perpetual motion
— n
1. Also called: perpetual motion of the first kind motion of a hypothetical mechanism that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy. It is impossible in practice because of friction
2. Also called: perpetual motion of the second kind motion of a hypothetical mechanism that derives its energy from a source at a lower temperature. It is impossible in practice because of the second law of thermodynamics
A more obscure category is a perpetual motion machine of the third kind, usually (but not always)[3] defined as one that completely eliminates friction and other dissipative forces, to maintain motion forever (due to its mass inertia). Third in this case refers solely to the position in the above classification scheme, not the third law of thermodynamics. Although it is impossible to make such a machine,[4][5] as dissipation can never be 100% eliminated in a mechanical system, it is nevertheless possible to get very close to this ideal (see examples in the Low Friction section). Such a machine would not serve as a source of energy but would have utility as a perpetual energy storage device.
In a transitory existence such as our's, where we can observe whole galaxies being gobbled up by black holes, where parts wear out, and external influences inevitably come into play, nothing can be truly considered perpetual except perhaps self evident truths which in themselves are subjective and therefore transitory.
The propeller-heads and boffins that write dictionary definitions may know the the difference between an "elbow" and an "ass" and where they go in the alphabetical listing of words but that certainly doesn't mean or guarantee that they know the difference bteween their own. By and large they don't.
The noisy and bothersome flying creatures we just happen to call "crows" are called just that because of the way they constantly "crow" and that has nothing to do with the colour of their feathers or whether you blow them all off with a shotgun, they are what they are, and if the "crow" and the rest of the trouble that generally comes with that package fits, it's definitely one.
Language is language and words are merely the rough and crude tools we've evolved and use to try and communcate ideas. The ideas are important, the words are not. Nor are they sacred, above reproach, or beyond being used any way we damn well please if it helps us to put any idea across in more meaningful way.
They're always a problem too and no matter how many we have or what meanings we attach to them it's never enough. That's why we have pictures and why we rely on on things like figures speech and the tone of our voices or all kinds of body gestures to try add what the dictionaries never can or do.
Bottom line it's all about "getting the picture" in mind, not getting the words that only vaguely point out where to look for it or a few heplfull hints that are rarely that at all, about what to look for in your own mental landscape.
Now I'm not suggesting that nit-picking with words can't be fun, just that there are always better fish to fry... if you try.
More importantly - which is tastier: black crow or white crow? Because if anyone succeeds in building a PM device, a lot of people are going to have to eat a lot of crow ...
and try to find a way to "crow-bar" themselves out of that fix of suddenly finding everyone looking at them like they're "Crow-magnons" and maybe even knuckle-dragging Neanderthals for being so dumb and naieve.
I'm afraid that their most ardent admirers and defenders will simply eat them alive when that happens, so we may not get much of chance to see them get down to that dinner you mentioned.
Pity about that, but it should be quite a spectacle for us to simply sit back and watch. Can't say we didn't try to tell them. They just wouldn't listen...hmmm?
greendoor wrote:More importantly - which is tastier: black crow or white crow? Because if anyone succeeds in building a PM device, a lot of people are going to have to eat a lot of crow ...
And the one who succeeds will be crowing.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
